Universal basic income (UBI) has supporters across the political spectrum. The idea is that if every citizen received a payment from the state to cover their living costs, it this will allow them the freedom to live as they choose.

But voters who turned down a UBI pilot in a recent referendum in the German city of Hamburg apparently found something to dislike. A frequent argument against UBI is that recipients will decide to work less. This in turn will make labour (and consequently labour-intensive products) more expensive. 

Indeed, a recent study on a UBI experiment has found that recipients of an unconditional monthly transfer of US$1,000 (£760) were significantly less likely to work. And if they did work, they put in fewer hours than a control group who received only US$50 per month.

all 42 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 113 points 7 months ago (2 children)

They say "people will work less" like it's a bad thing.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    they do specifically say because that will lead to increasing costs of goods. A valid concern I think when cost of living is on the rise.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 78 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Isn't that the whole idea of UBI? To make up for lost work due to technological advances...

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 67 points 7 months ago*

    The transfer caused total individual income excluding the transfers to fall by about $1,800/year relative to the control group and a 3.9 percentage point decrease in labor market participation. Participants reduced their work hours as a result of the transfers by 1-2 hours/week and participants’ partners reduced their work hours by a comparable amount.

    Just in case anyone was wondering here is how much less work people did in the study. So ~4hrs/week less working on average for couples or 1-2hrs/week per person.

    Of course productivity has increased 87.3% since 1979 so those lost hours mean nothing in the grand scheme of things.

  • source
  • [–] 66 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Good...?

    A frequent argument against UBI is that recipients will decide to work less. This in turn will make labour (and consequently labour-intensive products) more expensive.

    Oh boy, the stupid people found a way to defend being abused. It's good that people are working less. It shouldn't even make things more expensive. Now instead of 1 worker slaving away for 8 hours, we can have 2 workers slaving away for 4 hours each. It's nothing but beneficial for everyone who isn't profiting off of abuse.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 55 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    How much misinformation was spread by the opposition?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 7 months ago

    Virtually none. However, Hamburg has disproportionately rich citizens, and Germany as a whole has a pretty old population. This results in politics being naturally skewed towards conservative neo liberal dogma.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 41 points 7 months ago

    The voters in Hamburg did not vote against universal basic income. They voted against a pilot project as a study which would have given around 2000 citizens about 1300€ for three years.

    Not only have there already been studies like that, they're also not very meaningful given that those people know that this income was for a limited time frame and act accordingly.

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    This sounds absurd. Wtf is $750 going to get you that you no longer need to work much?

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 7 months ago

    Might be just enough that one spouse will stay home to take care of the kids. Just enough that you don’t have to work for health insurance. Just enough that you can try starting something new, working on your art, continuing your education.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    On an individual level you’re right. $750 does not cover the cost of living. However, when combined with a couple that, not only doubles how much the family is taking in, increases the likelihood that 1 of the 2 either doesn’t work or works less.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    Exactly. The fear of everyone quitting their jobs because of 1000$ is baseless.

    The people it really makes a difference for are those who already struggle surviving, to take away some of the stress and enable them to get their lives on track.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 7 months ago

    People having to work less is the whole point. UBI is not about increasing economic productivity. It's about distributing the fruits of the productivity more equitably.

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    There’s a push for companies to constantly increase their profits. That means sooner or later prices must rise. Sooner or later labor must be paid less. In fact, this has been happening for decades. Prices have been rising faster than wages for decades.

    Seems to me like labor should get paid more and there should be something (regulations?) to prevent prices from rising when it happens.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 7 months ago

    Economics is a religion, not a science.

    How economics became a religion | John Rapley https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/jul/11/how-economics-became-a-religion

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    UBI fundamentally doesn't work unless you have controls in place against inflation (read: profiteering). Give everyone an additional paycheck? Welp, I guess prices of everything just rose to compensate this sudden new "cash".

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    The goal of UBI isnt to "make everyone more wealthy instantly", that would be unrealistic. So claiming it "doesnt work" because it doesnt make everyone 1000$ richer is just wrong.

    One of the main goals is to help people with low/no income, who struggle to get their lives on track, by taking away the immense stress they experience from the struggle for survival. This could turn their downward spiral back upwards.

    A months worth of groceries wont get 1000$ more expensive. For the median employee it might not make a difference as it might cancel out, for the rich probably neither, they arent really influenced by inflation. But it would have a huge impact on lower-income households.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    That's not what I said. I said inflation will just eat up any standard of living gains you think you will make.

    The problem of poverty isn't solved by more "money" - it's solved by moving beyond the economic/systemic model which creates poverty and inequality in the first place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    I think you have a misunderstanding here. Theres no "more money", its tax money that already exists. Its not printing money, its simply a shift from top to bottom.

    That's not what I said. I said inflation will just eat up any standard of living gains you think you will make.

    This part cant be true. How much inflation do you think UBI would cause? Like 100%? That would mean a household with an income of 4000$ and 2500$ spendings per month would not be able to afford their current lifestyle because they would need 5000$. Doesnt seem realistic.

    But even in that scenario, people who lived off of 300$/month before would have 1300$ while their spendings would only increase to 600$. Thats definitely a gain.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Adjusting redistributive tax rates and UBI are two different things. You can achieve UBI through redistributive tax means, or you can do it through other means.

    We can argue about how long inflation takes to eat up any gains, but the reality is it will eventually happen. Will it take 6 months? 12 months? 36 months? Doesn't really matter. The very fact that UBI is flat based (i.e everyone gets the same, regardless of means) is the reason it has this problem.

    UBI is not a solution to anything. At best, it's temporary bump in standard of living. At worst, it's an excuse to remove other more effective wealth redistribution methods and just contributes to worsening inequality. Don't fall for the trap. Economic models already exist to solve these problems, and UBI is not one of them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    You literally didnt read my comment. Are you arguing that 400$ income family will spend 1400$ after inflation hits? So a 2000$ income family will need 5000$ for their current lifestyle? Thats just nonsense.

    I could paste my whole comment again explaining that UBI is not supposed to raise the standard of living for everyone, its supposed to shift from rich to poor, but you wont read it anyway so I wont bother anymore.

    Enjoy the holidays.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Giving everyone a "basic income" does nothing to shift wealth from rich to poor. You are thinking of just standard redistributive welfare, which is a great policy to achieve that, if implemented correctly and fairly. UBI is something very different from this, for a very different purpose. Read up on political economics to learn more about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago

    If I had a decent ubi, I'd go back to school full time, now that I'm getting the hang of it (doing college part time). So, of course I'd work less. This seems such a narrow scope of a ubi's impact

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago

    This is probably as good a place as any to ask a question I've been mulling around recently. One of my dad's friends told him that when they were on an Indian reservation, the casinos gave a stipend to everyone on the reservation and because they had this stipend, a lot of the people on the reservation decided to work less and instead just get drunk or do drugs or beat their wives or whatever.

    My thought on this is that there are so many problems caused by poverty that it's possible that without the stipend from the casino, these folks would be even worse off. And there may not be good jobs in their area. And my dad said, well why don't they drive to somewhere that has jobs? Like that is something anybody would want to do if they didn't need to get the money.

    So I guess my question is, are there any people who've done research on stipends like this that already exists in the real world and any data specifically on Indian reservations would be really interesting to me?

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    Why are they using a pic of £1 coins and UK notes?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    My biggest concern with UBI is price increases across every metric to account for it, like what happened when women entered the workforce. It used to be that a family could survive on a single paycheck but after decades the corporations and resources realized they could charge almost double and still get it. I worry it would be the same with UBI.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    People say the same of giving people a living wage. If we can't do good things because bad actors will take advantage of it, the solution is not to stop doing good things but to punish the bad actors.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    My heart goes up to you, residents of Hamburg…

  • source